Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,644
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected all of the claims on appeal setting forth
three prior art rejections. The three prior art rejections are discussed
below.
i. The Rejection of Claim 1-3 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art taken in view of
Tate and further in view of Oddo
Alexander did not argue the separate patentability of any
subgroups of the claims as provided by rule so we select claim 1 as
representative.3 Alexander claim 1 is directed to a process for treating
waste solids from the processing of titanium-bearing ores including
waste metal hydroxide solids. The process involves contacting waste
solids with an acid under conditions effective to dissolve at least some
of the waste metal hydroxide solids. The residual undissolved solids
are then separated out and the remainder is injected into a
subterranean waste disposal well.
The Examiner held that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to conduct Alexander’s process where
neutralized wastes solids from the processing of titanium-bearing ore
are contacted with an acid to dissolve waste solids prior to injecting
the solids into a subterranean well. Alexander disagrees.
Alexander contends that Tate is not concerned with treating
suspended solids already existing at the surface, such as those
recovered from a pond. (Appeal Br. at 4). Alexander states that the
solids Tate contemplates dissolving are those formed by precipitation
3 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013